BRITLAND

Mixed views on the party, some call them saviours of Britain, others call them the racist joke of Britain, some describe Nigel Farage as the UK equivalent of George Bush Jr if he'd won the next election.

Now I've found the policies of UKIP & what they really stand for in Britain, but not solely focused on immigration but other issues that need attention, please read & give your thoughts on what a UKIP Britain would look likehttp://www.theguardi...sto-commitments

Tax and the economy
Merge income tax and national insurance into a flat 31% for all starting at £11,500. Scrap employers' NI with revenue recouped from corporation tax, VAT or reduced welfare.

Cut state spending to 1997 levels with loss of two million public sector jobs, replaced by one million new manufacturing jobs and at least another million created because of Ukip's lower tax environment.

Council tax cut paid for by axeing landfill tax and cull of town hall "non jobs". The defence equipment budget will be doubled to £8bn, £3.5bn will be spent on nuclear power plants to provide 50% of energy, and more prisons will be built.

Immigration
Five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement followed by 50,000 annual cap.

Work permits to be time-limited and overstaying made a crime. No amnesty for illegal immigrants: all returned to home country.

Minimum five-year wait for British citizenship with no rights to benefits and all asylum seekers to be held in secure units.

It's basically a manifesto designed to pander solely to the bigoted, the deluded, the ignorant and the elderly, usually in a combination. No-one who has the faintest grasp of politics or economics finds a single aspect of it even remotely feasible. I'm struggling to say much more because the entire thing reads like someone's idea of an April Fool's Day joke.

Mathemagician

I agree with what they're saying on crime (minus getting rid of the Human Rights Act), but every other policy is just nonsensical and irrational; their policies on the environment and defence are especially laughable.

Melchior

Low taxes don't necessarily create new jobs. Cutting taxes only works if you're cutting them in a certain area, while that area of the economy is seeing drastic growth- in other words, if a new technology came about, it would advance faster without the tax burden. Other than that, the government is an agent in the economy; it spends the money it makes from taxes, that money doesn't disappear into thin air. Taking money from the government doesn't equate to putting money into the economy.

Reduced welfare? Surely there's another area of public spending that could see cuts before welfare- something people survive off of. Doing so wouldn't even produce enough revenue to remove an entire tax from existence, despite what the radical right would have you believe, social programs make up a comparatively small portion of most country's budgets.

I like the idea of incentivising electric car production, but why give the finger to the climate change panel, obstruct renewable energy and ban schools from showing a film about climate change? Seems like they're quite backwards on the issue.

And their welfare proposals, holy balls. So how do low earners and the unemployed (especially young people who are unable to live in the parental home, basically the bulk of welfare recipients) supposed to live without welfare? How are people supposed to get the f*cking train in to town for an interview if they don't get a job seekers allowance? How is someone who just got into the country but can't find a job (possibly due to language barriers, read:refugees) supposed to get by? Jesus, you people are dangerous.

Also, increase defense spending by 40%? And this will be paid for by a marginal decrease in social program spending?

The immigration policies are perhaps the most detestable. Britain is required to take in asylum seekers. And what will this freeze of immigration (also not feasible, Britain has commitments to the EU and to the Commonwealth, and the bulk of immigrants come from within these unions) and annual 50,000 cap accomplish anyway? And the government should stop promoting multiculturalism? This is blatant xenophobia.

tl;dr a UKIP Britain would be like a much more racially tense and economically destitute version of the US. Oh wait, what's that? Free eye checks and dental and smoking rooms in pubs? Nevermind, got my vote.

31% starting at £11,500? So.. £7935 take home? I realize conversion rates right now favor the pound but I can't imagine that's incredibly livable in either of our countries. I'm for incredibly streamlined tax systems but this is just cruelty to poor people.

@Immigration

I'm sympathetic to the immigration issue and loss of cultural clarity, but I'd like to see more international investment in developing economies. Like Kiva style stuff. If they're happy at home and in developing their own country and culture, then they won't have need to migrate elsewhere.

@Crime

I'm for the troubled youth bootcamps and strengthened efforts towards rehabilitation, but doubling prisons sounds like an invitation to corporatism. Is the criminal population in the UK that big/poorly contained?

@Defense

Who the hell does the UK intend to fight? Argentina? Spain? (The latter mentioned largely in jest) I'm pretty sure the UK's current military is more than formidable enough to stand to any challenge it is likely to face. With the two planned Queen Liz class carriers in the works, an additional 3 would bring the UKs carrier count to 5 (I'm accounting for the decommissioning of the Illustrious). The US has 11 aircraft carriers and 9 amphibious helicopter carriers.

The talk of a basic cash benefit makes me think of the Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), though I realize they're talking about something a little short of that. I'm a believer in the BIG, and coupled with streamlining initiatives I'd like to see the entirety of the social safety net replaced with the BIG. I also can agree with cutting off the benefits for people who have more than a few children. I think every couple could have two kids and the population rate would probably fall, so three is probably a good number for plateauing.

@Environment
I like trains.

Rown

EDIT: Felt the need to clarify that were I a citizen of the UK, I would not vote for this party. Nor do I think I'd vote for an Americanized version of this party.

Brad

It's basically a manifesto designed to pander solely to the bigoted, the deluded, the ignorant and the elderly, usually in a combination. No-one who has the faintest grasp of politics or economics finds a single aspect of it even remotely feasible. I'm struggling to say much more because the entire thing reads like someone's idea of an April Fool's Day joke.

I, too, am confused about its complete contradiction of its foreign policy. On one hand, UKIP wants to bolster Britain's defences by confronting the cost of three aircraft carriers and the appropriate air itinerary. On the other, it wants to isolate itself from combat operations so what exactly is the use of those aircraft carriers? I mean, if you look at how the US uses its supercarriers and big-deck amphibious warships: The CVN 75 Harry S. Truman, the CVN 68 Nimitz and the LHD3 Kearsarge are all conducting security theatre operations. A couple more are underway in the atlantic and pacific oceans, most likely to partake in bilateral military exercises.

So, how will UKIP ever utilize its defence properly and in national interest? It seems to me, as you say, the politically ignorant who have no concept of how to utilize its military and standing in the international system, where cooperation for a country like Britain with other states is just as important to a nation's influence in the world as its military force.

Irviding

This is a prime example of populism unchained and this platform should be showed by the professor in any political science course when discussing "pandering to idiots".

This platform is retarded. Many of these proposals conflict directly with one another, and some are flat out insane. Increasing defense spending by 40%, all the while cutting taxes and increasing spending on crime control?

Carbonox

I won't take a stand on the other issues, but I like that immigration policy. Sure, call me xenophobic all you want, but multiculturality is an utterly failed concept in all of Europe, and will only benefit people if everyone integrates into society properly.

Melchior

I won't take a stand on the other issues, but I like that immigration policy. Sure, call me xenophobic all you want, but multiculturality is an utterly failed concept in all of Europe, and will only benefit people if everyone integrates into society properly.

I've noticed no such failure. People tend to shriek endlessly about the "failure" of multiculturalism without elaborating at all.

So, the floor is yours. Go on, justify supporting the majority of UKIP policies. Broken down, in individual policy form, please. The same goes for you, Carbonox. Justify your assertion that multiculturalism is empirically and unequivocally a failure or face a barrage of mockery.

Carbonox

I won't take a stand on the other issues, but I like that immigration policy. Sure, call me xenophobic all you want, but multiculturality is an utterly failed concept in all of Europe, and will only benefit people if everyone integrates into society properly.

I've noticed no such failure. People tend to shriek endlessly about the "failure" of multiculturalism without elaborating at all.

Then what's up with all the crime-ridden slums where the immigrants make up the majority of the population? Some of them are even trying to forcefully place Sharia law on those areas - if that's not a sign of failed integration, I don't know what is.

S99

So, the floor is yours. Go on, justify supporting the majority of UKIP policies. Broken down, in individual policy form, please. The same goes for you, Carbonox. Justify your assertion that multiculturalism is empirically and unequivocally a failure or face a barrage of mockery.

Melchior

I won't take a stand on the other issues, but I like that immigration policy. Sure, call me xenophobic all you want, but multiculturality is an utterly failed concept in all of Europe, and will only benefit people if everyone integrates into society properly.

I've noticed no such failure. People tend to shriek endlessly about the "failure" of multiculturalism without elaborating at all.

Then what's up with all the crime-ridden slums where the immigrants make up the majority of the population? Some of them are even trying to forcefully place Sharia law on those areas - if that's not a sign of failed integration, I don't know what is.

The actual situation is no where near so dramatic. Yes, there are bad neighbourhoods where immigrants make up a majority of the population. But they aren't that exceptionally crime-ridden, at least not compared to the near-exclusively white areas in Scotland and the North of England where you literally have to double-bolt your window shut and have been a breeding ground for organised crime for decades. But feel free to demonstrate, statistically, that crime rates in Britain have shot up in tandem with immigration rates. All I know is, I'd feel safer walking through a Pakistani neighbourhood at night than walking through a bad part of Dundee.

People trying to enforce Sharia law? And they make up a sizeable portion of immigrants, do they? Because I've never met a Muslim immigrant in Australia or the UK who wanted Sharia law. You seem to be under the impression that Sharia law is something inherent to Islam and that people will "bring it with them" yet Indonesia is the largest Islamic state on earth and Sharia law is suspiciously absent. How about you put down the Daily Mail and actually go meet some immigrants?

Sharia law is inherent in Islam, but not in the way that most people associate it. It's another example of public perceptions having no bearing on actual reality. When you say "Sharia law", most people think of kangaroo courts, stoning adulterers and chopping off limbs. Which is one interpretation of Sharia, but not the most prominent or common one. Sharia in the most generalist terms, as exhibited in moderate and inclusive Sunni and Sufi Islam, is entirely compatible with a Western justice system because it acknowledges the rule of law in a nation. It primarily offers guidance and assistance for issues of faith, such as marital or family disputes, feeding and fasting, work and education, or all manner of other things that aren't in any way affected directly by the law.

In Indonesia, Sharia law does form the basis of the legal system. It's just that in most interpretations, a Sharia law derived legal system isn't very different to any other legal system.

Gasmasks

The whole thing is unrealistic. But I'd love to see immigration caps, making overstaying a crime and getting terrorists straight out of the country. Another thing I want is for the EU to go and overseas aid to end.

We have boroughs in this country living like they are third world, starving, no heating and much more, but this is a first world country?

So if this country has people desperatly needing help, why are we helping other countries which aren't our responsibility?

I personally think that we should focus on our own problems, get them sorted, then we can worry about something else. I disagree entirely with overseas aid anyway, it shouldn't be our problem. It really isn't our fault that sh*tty Greece is in debt, why should we care? Greece used to be a great country, now it isn't. It doesn't benefit us to help Greece, it doesn't benefit us to feed Africa. However it does benefit us to feed our own f*cking people and to stop crazy terrorists from blowing us up, but nobody does this and they do help retard backwards countries. What do we gain out of the EU? Romany gypsies robbing our citizens and Eastern European Criminals on our shores all the while paying money to help them develop? Where are our benefits from this? Nowhere. Why don't we stop the NHS being free for people who aren't British?

This post isn't about colour either, this is about being British. If you aren't British, you shouldn't be entitled to ANYTHING that our country has to offer. We don't have any jobs over here, so why are we letting more people come in? This is so f*cking stupid it's unreal. It actually IS simple, you just say 'No more immigrants, whatsoever. There is no space for you, no jobs for you' But they do get free housing and benefits.. Ridiculous. They need to stop this entirely, no exceptions.

Melchior

Can someone explain to me why, in a country of rampant crime and drug addiction, and massive economic inequality and stagnation, the most pressing issue to some people is "too many immigrants, getting free money, what the f*ck is that!?"

What, you mean naturalised British citizens, like something like 95% of people who receive benefits of any kind are?

If you aren't British, you shouldn't be entitled to ANYTHING that our country has to offer.

Why not? We're part of a European free market. People outside of that don't have much, if, any entitlement to government aid apart from a small number of asylum seekers who represent a cost so small it could be considered a rounding error. People from elsewhere in Europe are extremely valuable from an employment perspective. Put simply, we have neither the manpower nor the education system to produce specialists in quite a large number of fields. Where else do you suggest we get people from?

Take the most undersubscribed role in the UK- the CNC machinist. There are about 10 times as many vacancies as there are people to fill them. Learning to be a CNC machinist takes about 5 years. We need CNC machinists now. No, actually, we need CNC machinists yesterday. So, how do you suppose we fill these vital roles?

We don't have any jobs over here

Yes, yes we do. There are a truly vast number of available jobs in the UK. Utterly gargantuan. In fact there are whole swathes of our economy that are under-producing dramatically because we don't have the domestic skills to meet job demand- the industry in which I work being one. The problem isn't a lack of jobs, the problem is the lack of people with the required training to fill the jobs that are there.

so why are we letting more people come in?

Because it's economically beneficial? There has never been a single socioeconomic study done in the UK that indicates that immigration is economically harmful or disruptive. There has never been a single socioeconomic study done in the UK which has concluded that immigration affects job availability for domestic citizens. They're utter myths perpetuated by closet bigots and people who don't understand economics or sociology who are naive enough to believe the xenophobic tripe.

Gasmasks

What, you mean naturalised British citizens, like something like 95% of people who receive benefits of any kind are?

If you aren't British, you shouldn't be entitled to ANYTHING that our country has to offer.

Why not? We're part of a European free market. People outside of that don't have much, if, any entitlement to government aid apart from a small number of asylum seekers who represent a cost so small it could be considered a rounding error. People from elsewhere in Europe are extremely valuable from an employment perspective. Put simply, we have neither the manpower nor the education system to produce specialists in quite a large number of fields. Where else do you suggest we get people from?

Take the most undersubscribed role in the UK- the CNC machinist. There are about 10 times as many vacancies as there are people to fill them. Learning to be a CNC machinist takes about 5 years. We need CNC machinists now. No, actually, we need CNC machinists yesterday. So, how do you suppose we fill these vital roles?

We don't have any jobs over here

Yes, yes we do. There are a truly vast number of available jobs in the UK. Utterly gargantuan. In fact there are whole swathes of our economy that are under-producing dramatically because we don't have the domestic skills to meet job demand- the industry in which I work being one. The problem isn't a lack of jobs, the problem is the lack of people with the required training to fill the jobs that are there.

so why are we letting more people come in?

Because it's economically beneficial? There has never been a single socioeconomic study done in the UK that indicates that immigration is economically harmful or disruptive. There has never been a single socioeconomic study done in the UK which has concluded that immigration affects job availability for domestic citizens. They're utter myths perpetuated by closet bigots and people who don't understand economics or sociology who are naive enough to believe the xenophobic tripe.

Say au revoir to the expertise required to construct our new generation of nuclear plants. Auf Wiedersehen to the microelectronics designers keeping the east of England outside London in the black.

They need to stop this entirely, no exceptions.

What the f*ck are they teaching children these days?

I'm not sure if I don't know how to separate the quotes like you did, or if I'm too lazy to try. Either way this had to be quoted so you can tell I'm responding to you.

Yes, what I wrote did come across as xenophobic because of the way I worded it, I could have worded it a lot better and got the same point across.

I stand by the fact that non-British citizens should receive free healthcare in this country, it screams the message 'Send your sick and dying to us, we'll do all the work for free!' - This is not cool, I don't think this should be allowed. However, I should have added that if they work in the UK, have a citizenship, a visa or any other means which allow them to work and stay in the UK then they SHOULD be entitled to free healthcare, for they contribute to our society.

Yes, we do have jobs here. That was grossly exaggerated and slightly propaganda fueled. I have nothing else to say on this matter.

Instead of this 'Why are we letting more people come in?' I should have put 'Why are we letting more unskilled people enter our country? We have enough of these people already here, we do not need a surplus from foreign soil. I don't think there is a problem at all with only allowing skilled workers entry and refusing the rest of them, this way we can continue to reap the rewards of the immigration majority fields, such as Doctors and people in the construction trade.' I do believe I wrote hastily on this post without thinking too much in depth of what I was actually putting down.

I do find it stupid how we let unskilled immigrants come into England, I don't feel that I should change my opinion on this. They let just any body into the country, rapists, theifs, murderers, people who have contributed to attempted genocide and other scum that we already have plenty of in the UK, so again, we don't need foreign aid on obtaining these people, the countries they belong to should keep them along with unskilled workers.

Your intellectual response was ruined by your own childish dig at the end, this is what I'm talking about:

So yes, I seem to have typed some of my opinions from an angry point of view, with various exaggerations and short sighted comments. Now that I have corrected myself after you pointed out some of the points, I feel that it sits a little better. It might still come across as Xenophobic, but now that I have made amendments I can safely say that I am happy for them to represent me. The rest of the post. Meh maybe, I'm not really sure and I haven't read it again.

I should probably refrain from writing things when I am under the influence of anything, I seem to read over it and feel slight embarrassment but that doesn't matter, what's done is done and I cannot take that back. Not that I'd want to anyway.

This club of the logically deprived, much like all the other Europhobic populist extremist "political" clubs, is flawed at the very core. They have no inkling whatsoever of implementation method, costings or longterm reality of any of the bigot or ignorance based rhetoric that make up their wish lists of hate.

It's the same old story; Suffer from immigrant anxiety? Vote UKIP. Hate multiculturalism, Europe, equality, Muslims... Vote UKIP, deprived of any sense of political, societal and economical reality? Vote UKIP. In short: Are you an ignorant bigot with no sense of reality - Vote UKIP.

I'm not sure if I don't know how to separate the quotes like you did, or if I'm too lazy to try. Either way this had to be quoted so you can tell I'm responding to you.

It's simply a matter of editing the BBCode, but fair enough.

Let me start by addressing this:

Your intellectual response was ruined by your own childish dig at the end, this is what I'm talking about:'DAFUQ R DEY TEECHUN CHILDRUN DEZE DAIZ?!1!?' - This wasn't necessary and did not aid your points, even slightly. *Claps slowly* Well done.

Which was more a statement of exasperation at the increasing prevalence of the views you outlined, which have gained a great deal of popular traction thanks to the contributions of the right-wing media in the UK (Daily Fail, I'm looking in your direction) but which have little to no bearing on actual reality. The point I was trying to make was that people- including young people, who are or at least should be directly exposed to the education system still seem to perpetuate these myths despite being in a position where they should know better and be capable of questioning the rationale behind this propaganda.

Yes, what I wrote did come across as xenophobic because of the way I worded it, I could have worded it a lot better and got the same point across.

In all honesty it did not come across well.

I stand by the fact that non-British citizens should receive free healthcare in this country, it screams the message 'Send your sick and dying to us, we'll do all the work for free!' - This is not cool, I don't think this should be allowed.

I assume you meant "shouldn't" as opposed to "should", but that's bye the bye. The simple fact of the matter is that this doesn't really take place. The NHS is free at the point of access for UK residents and citizens- even EU citizens only get free healthcare if they spend at least 182 days resident in the UK. Basically, you've got to have at least a right to residence- that does include non-naturalised, non-EU economic migrants with residence in the UK, and asylum seekers who have been granted leave to say in the UK- to get NHS care for free. There's an ongoing debate about how much we should be charging foreign nationals (I.E those without citizenship or residence in the UK, including foreign students on Tier 4 visas and their dependants) but they do not get the service for free already unless they're resident here. Given the poor placing of the UK in the EU healthcare tables (that you for that, NuLab) I don't see why anyone would choose to come to the UK for the sole purposes of medical care, and have seen no evidence to suggest this actually takes place on any scale large enough to constitute an issue.

However, I should have added that if they work in the UK, have a citizenship, a visa or any other means which allow them to work and stay in the UK then they SHOULD be entitled to free healthcare, for they contribute to our society.

Which is, by and large, how the system current works.

Instead of this 'Why are we letting more people come in?' I should have put 'Why are we letting more unskilled people enter our country?

Again, may I point out that we don't? The restrictions on people entering the country, even from Commonwealth nations, are pretty arduous. The only group of foreign nationals who are permitted free movement in the UK are EU citizens, and that's one of the primary tenets of the EU agreement, something we can't change. Similarly, a British citizen can choose to go live and work anywhere in the EU regardless of skill level- and let's not forget, many do- so complaining about this on such a scale seems to be largely a British phenomenon. The two big continental EU economies- France and Germany- have largely embraced European labour, including that from Eastern Europe- much to the anger of a small proportion of both their populations. The only other group who are entitled to residence in the UK without meeting the skill requirements and quote are asylum seekers, who are practically guaranteed it under the Geneva Convention, and represent a minute fraction of immigration, let alone the population as a whole.

I do believe I wrote hastily on this post without thinking too much in depth of what I was actually putting down.

I believe this is probably a fair assessment.

I do find it stupid how we let unskilled immigrants come into England, I don't feel that I should change my opinion on this.

As I've explained above, it doesn't really happen.

They let just any body into the country, rapists, theifs, murderers, people who have contributed to attempted genocide and other scum that we already have plenty of in the UK, so again, we don't need foreign aid on obtaining these people, the countries they belong to should keep them along with unskilled workers.

Again, I hate to repeat myself but this is largely untrue. The tabloid papers have picked up on a handful of examples of this taking place but it is far from a common trend. It reminds me very much of the sensationalist headlines I saw doing the rounds when the census was conducted "20% of all crime committed by non-White-British nationals". Which sounds awful until you realise that ethnicities other than White British make up almost exactly 20% of the population and therefore this is in line with what you'd expect.

ciccogol

I'm not sure if I don't know how to separate the quotes like you did, or if I'm too lazy to try. Either way this had to be quoted so you can tell I'm responding to you.

It's simply a matter of editing the BBCode, but fair enough.

Let me start by addressing this:

Your intellectual response was ruined by your own childish dig at the end, this is what I'm talking about:
'DAFUQ R DEY TEECHUN CHILDRUN DEZE DAIZ?!1!?' - This wasn't necessary and did not aid your points, even slightly. *Claps slowly* Well done.

Which was more a statement of exasperation at the increasing prevalence of the views you outlined, which have gained a great deal of popular traction thanks to the contributions of the right-wing media in the UK (Daily Fail, I'm looking in your direction) but which have little to no bearing on actual reality. The point I was trying to make was that people- including young people, who are or at least should be directly exposed to the education system still seem to perpetuate these myths despite being in a position where they should know better and be capable of questioning the rationale behind this propaganda.

Yes, what I wrote did come across as xenophobic because of the way I worded it, I could have worded it a lot better and got the same point across.

In all honesty it did not come across well.

I stand by the fact that non-British citizens should receive free healthcare in this country, it screams the message 'Send your sick and dying to us, we'll do all the work for free!' - This is not cool, I don't think this should be allowed.

I assume you meant "shouldn't" as opposed to "should", but that's bye the bye. The simple fact of the matter is that this doesn't really take place. The NHS is free at the point of access for UK residents and citizens- even EU citizens only get free healthcare if they spend at least 182 days resident in the UK. Basically, you've got to have at least a right to residence- that does include non-naturalised, non-EU economic migrants with residence in the UK, and asylum seekers who have been granted leave to say in the UK- to get NHS care for free. There's an ongoing debate about how much we should be charging foreign nationals (I.E those without citizenship or residence in the UK, including foreign students on Tier 4 visas and their dependants) but they do not get the service for free already unless they're resident here. Given the poor placing of the UK in the EU healthcare tables (that you for that, NuLab) I don't see why anyone would choose to come to the UK for the sole purposes of medical care, and have seen no evidence to suggest this actually takes place on any scale large enough to constitute an issue.

However, I should have added that if they work in the UK, have a citizenship, a visa or any other means which allow them to work and stay in the UK then they SHOULD be entitled to free healthcare, for they contribute to our society.

Which is, by and large, how the system current works.

Instead of this 'Why are we letting more people come in?' I should have put 'Why are we letting more unskilled people enter our country?

Again, may I point out that we don't? The restrictions on people entering the country, even from Commonwealth nations, are pretty arduous. The only group of foreign nationals who are permitted free movement in the UK are EU citizens, and that's one of the primary tenets of the EU agreement, something we can't change. Similarly, a British citizen can choose to go live and work anywhere in the EU regardless of skill level- and let's not forget, many do- so complaining about this on such a scale seems to be largely a British phenomenon. The two big continental EU economies- France and Germany- have largely embraced European labour, including that from Eastern Europe- much to the anger of a small proportion of both their populations. The only other group who are entitled to residence in the UK without meeting the skill requirements and quote are asylum seekers, who are practically guaranteed it under the Geneva Convention, and represent a minute fraction of immigration, let alone the population as a whole.

I do believe I wrote hastily on this post without thinking too much in depth of what I was actually putting down.

I believe this is probably a fair assessment.

I do find it stupid how we let unskilled immigrants come into England, I don't feel that I should change my opinion on this.

As I've explained above, it doesn't really happen.

They let just any body into the country, rapists, theifs, murderers, people who have contributed to attempted genocide and other scum that we already have plenty of in the UK, so again, we don't need foreign aid on obtaining these people, the countries they belong to should keep them along with unskilled workers.

Again, I hate to repeat myself but this is largely untrue. The tabloid papers have picked up on a handful of examples of this taking place but it is far from a common trend. It reminds me very much of the sensationalist headlines I saw doing the rounds when the census was conducted "20% of all crime committed by non-White-British nationals". Which sounds awful until you realise that ethnicities other than White British make up almost exactly 20% of the population and therefore this is in line with what you'd expect.

Only in modern Britain can self-hating, perverse and dangerous individuals such as 'Sivispacem' exist. Where I am from, thankfully people like you are marginalized and isolated. The way in which you pretend to be 'shocked' when a normal Englishman with at least a stirring of love for his homeland and country suggests that there are too many Africans, Pakistanis or Arabs is quite outrageous. People like you have simply never existed throughout history - you are the anomaly which welcomes the degradation and destruction of your own culture.

I don't understand your mentality - allow to provide an example. I am sure that you have read at length about the vast networks of Asians who specifically prey upon white British girls. I am also sure that you take the time to point out that 'several' white men are also involved. I am sure you point out that there are, in fact, millions of 'fantastic' Muslims, who form part of Britain's vibrant ethnic tapestry and who condemn these pedophiles. However, I am not as sure that you think about what would have happened to the whites if they had done this in Pakistan. I am not as sure that you have ever had a rush of red, masculine blood through your passive Anglo veins and wanted to protect your people. If this happened in Serbia, we would have broken their faces and driven them into the sea.

And if you want to provide facts about race and crime in your country in that irritating, smug and cutesy way, at least be accurate about. Because, as most people believe, foreigners do in fact do a lot more raping, killing, thieving and provoking than the natives. Because in homogeneous societies, brothers do not kill or steal from their brothers or sisters to such a degree.

With a quick search, we can observe that in London, Metropolitan Police statistics found that blacks alone (not including hordes of Asians who are sexual perverts especially) were responsible for the following: "54 percent accused of street crimes were black; for robbery, 59 percent; for gun crimes, 67 percent; and for sexual offences, 32 percent." http://www.telegraph...on-of-race.html This is despite the fact that blacks form just 14% of the population. Please refrain from making up figures to support your outlandish claims.

Because that is what they are outlandish. And do you know what? Outside of your fantasy island of liberalism taken to an absurd degree, most of the world actually agrees with me. Most Nigerians, most Indians, certainly 99.9% of Chinese, Japanese etc. are like me - pride and unity in their own people and respect for other people if they respect you. After all, I would not have a problem if a big, global economy like the UK attracted a few hudnred thousand immigrants with strong technical knowledge and specialization - but millions and millions of peasants from Third World countries with incompatible ideologies and a perverse distaste for their adopted nation? That's simply lunacy and ultimate suicide.

Only in modern Britain can self-hating, perverse and dangerous individuals such as 'Sivispacem' exist.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how to effectively devalue your argument before you've started it.

Where I am from, thankfully people like you are marginalized and isolated.

A place where expressing inclusionist view that aren't driven by xenophobia and jingoism is looked down upon? Sounds like one of the seven circles of hell to me and probably to anyone else capable of rational thought.

The way in which you pretend to be 'shocked' when a normal Englishman with at least a stirring of love for his homeland and country suggests that there are too many Africans, Pakistanis or Arabs is quite outrageous.

People are entitled to think whatever bigoted sh*t they want. I'm not dictating how people should feel. I'm simply disputing the factual basis of many of their claims. If you want less foreign nationals and immigrants living in the UK because you're a raging xenophobe who prides the muddled, contradictory and utterly shallow crap that people like to pretend is a "cultural identity" over having a properly functioning society then be my guest. But don't be as naive and ignorant as to try and pretend there's a rational, empirical economic or social justification for your biases because there isn't.

People like you have simply never existed throughout history - you are the anomaly which welcomes the degradation and destruction of your own culture.

What culture? There's no part of British "culture" that isn't entirely inherited from other nations. Half our national dishes arrived on these shores less than 50 years ago. Our heritage is one of immigration. I bet if you were from here you'd be one of those people who goes on about how "British" they are, ignorant of the fact that genetically, like 9/10ths of the British population, you're either majority Scandinavian, majority Gaul or a combination of both.

I don't understand your mentality - allow to provide an example. I am sure that you have read at length about the vast networks of Asians who specifically prey upon white British girls. I am also sure that you take the time to point out that 'several' white men are also involved. I am sure you point out that there are, in fact, millions of 'fantastic' Muslims, who form part of Britain's vibrant ethnic tapestry and who condemn these pedophiles. However, I am not as sure that you think about what would have happened to the whites if they had done this in Pakistan. I am not as sure that you have ever had a rush of red, masculine blood through your passive Anglo veins and wanted to protect your people.

That doesn't really have any relevance, though. I'm not making any claims to do with objective, universal moral values. It's totally irrelevant. And wrong, too. I'm not sure if you're aware of this- I doubt so because you seem to be making this bilge up as you go along- but there's historically been a great deal of issues with British people committing sexual offences against children in Southeast Asia. To the best of my knowledge there's no differential treatment for them. No, instead, you choose to use the example of a tribalist, authoritarian, third-world quasi-state that's actually more of a collection of small societies run by warlords and family dynasties and in a perpetual, Hobbesian war of all, against all, as a comparable example? I don't know about you but I don't really aspire to base my social ideology on tribalist, authoritarian, third-world quasi states run by warlords in a perpetual state of conflict.

If this happened in Serbia, we would have broken their faces and driven them into the sea.

Oh, right, because a nation with a very recent history of racial conflict is the perfect positive example to use in a discussion of racial ethics. What next, going to start quoting from The Turner Diaries?

And if you want to provide facts about race and crime in your country in that irritating, smug and cutesy way, at least be accurate about. Because, as most people believe, foreigners do in fact do a lot more raping, killing, thieving and provoking than the natives. Because in homogeneous societies, brothers do not kill or steal from their brothers or sisters to such a degree.

If you have an issue with how I conduct myself in my own subforum, then I suggest you go elsewhere.

Also, you're wrong.

I had written a large section summarising just why you were wrong, but I lost it by accident, so I'll break it down into bullet points:

Your statement is about foreigners, your evidence about blacks. This ignores the fact that the vast majority of blacks in the UK are not foreigners. Therefore it actually doesn't contribute to your argument in any way.

The trinity between deprivation, victimisation and offending amongst certain ethnic groups in the UK is well known. Racial segregation is one of the driving forces behind this conflict.

Your statements about Asians are ignorant of the fact that they actually have a lower than mean offending rate based on arrests.

There's not actually a huge disparity between ethnicity figures and arrest rates, see the statistics below.

Contrary to your claims, whites are still vastly more likely to be arrested for crimes than any other racial group.

Here's another point worthy of considering. If there's a correlation between net immigration into the UK and crime rates, why do crime rates frequently decline when net migration rises? I mean, real term crime figures have dropped consistently over the last decade yet the quantity of foreign nationals living in the UK has increased? Care to address that?

And do you know what? Outside of your fantasy island of liberalism taken to an absurd degree, most of the world actually agrees with me.

You say that like popular support matters in questions like this. "Most of the world" is developing, socially and economically, and is ruled by autocratic governments, rife with corruption and sectarianism. It isn't likely to have the same sense of social morals as the developed world is.

Also, care to explain to me why voluntary sectarianism is a good thing? What does benefits do sectarianism and jingoism bring, pray tell? Because from an external observer's perspective, all I can think of is genocide, conflict, racial segregation, violence, suffering, disorder and chaos. Why discriminate based on ethnicity or heritage? We're all the same f*cking species at the end of the day, imposing artificial boundaries based on lines on a map drawn between places that in the majority of cases didn't really exist 150 years ago and then getting all defensive of a "national" cultural heritage which is not only young, but usually based on immigration and foreign integration anyway, is just f*cking stupid.

Most Nigerians, most Indians, certainly 99.9% of Chinese, Japanese etc. are like me - pride and unity in their own people and respect for other people if they respect you.

Great examples there. Three countries with known violent sectarian issues and one that's spent the last 50 years cloning US culture. You couldn't have picked three worse examples if you'd started from the bottom of the Freedom House index. It also misses the point that it doesn't matter. In order for me to even acknowledge this argument, you've got to explain why such an attitude is empirically a good thing. "Lots of people do it" isn't an ethical justification.

After all, I would not have a problem if a big, global economy like the UK attracted a few hudnred thousand immigrants with strong technical knowledge and specialization - but millions and millions of peasants from Third World countries with incompatible ideologies and a perverse distaste for their adopted nation? That's simply lunacy and ultimate suicide.

I don't know, based on economics, social cohesion and the general state of society I'd say it's working pretty well

Captain VXR

I love how according to the first post, lowering taxes is guaranteed to create 1,000,000 private sector jobs? Who's arse was that figure pulled out of? Furthermore, the kippers on here using the classic "I'm not racist but" and "one good ____" justifications for statements that imply racism is hilarious. I can't take them seriously at all. "I'm not racist but send them all home", "the Pakistani man who sells me the Daily Mail is OK but it's all the ones grouped together in the big cities" etc. That's the standard of comments from UKIP supporters on the Daily Heil comments section.

Based on the evidence I have seen, UKIP are one big(oted) joke, as are most of their supporters. I'm also sure that people along the lines of Britland will be here soon ranting about 'white genocide' and how next time I go to the shops, I'm going to get stabbed by a group of gay Somalian Islamist Gypsies or something. And drinking Polish beer causes AIDS. The best way to fight fascism is to reduce it to a laughing stock, and that is what I will continue to do.

Na, he got banned. I don't know whether this guy had another account, there were a couple of Serb ultranationalists trolling some of the GC discussions on US foreign policy a while back who got hammered. Maybe he's one of those.